Chemotherapy Pushers and The Patriot Act

[kimmerspixelated]

(NaturalNews) by Mike Adams

In observing the outrageous acts of doctors who have turned 13-year-old Daniel Hauser and his mom into "fugitives from the law" over their refusal to submit to toxic chemotherapy treatments, I began to wonder whether existing U.S. law covers the crimes being committed against the Hauser family. It turns out the U.S. PATRIOT ACT already defines these cancer doctors and Child Protective Services zealots as "terrorists."

What is a terrorist? A domestic terrorist is a person who engages in illegal acts that are "dangerous to human life" and which are intended to intimidate or coerce a civilian population (among other things).

So let's examine how this might apply to the forced chemotherapy of Daniel Hauser:

• Chemotherapy is dangerous to human life. There's no question whatsoever about that. Even the cancer doctors will tell you chemotherapy is poison.

• The fugitive manhunt for the Hauser family, along with the threat of arrest from Child Protective Services, was part of a campaign to intimidate or coerce a civilian population into bowing to conventional cancer treatments (a political and financial aim).

• The kidnapping of Daniel Hauser by state authorities is a violation of United States law, not to mention the 4th and 14th amendments of the U.S. Constitution.

So we actually have all three elements here: Danger to human life, intimidation of a civilian population and the violation of law.

That makes this assault on the Hauser family an act of domestic terrorism!

So why aren't the cancer doctors and CPS kidnappers being arrested and shipped off to Gitmo for interrogation? I'll tell you why: Because in a police state, terrorism is really defined as anyone who acts against the State. Those who work for the State while engaging in acts of terrorism are exempt from terrorism laws.

The way these things work is that state authorities fabricate claims that "children are in danger" and then they use that as justification to firebomb a compound, or kidnap a teenage boy, or arrest the parents, or do whatever they wish to do.

They raid Scientology offices, or the Nemenhah Native American group (http://www.nemenhah.org), or home Bible study groups (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index....) or any other group they can target and label as being outside the mainstream. In effect, they criminalize nonconformity, then they use the excuse that children are harmed by such nonconformities as a justification for criminalizing anyone who resists.

And yet I would argue that conformity is more harmful to children than living an "alternative" lifestyle. Conformity means feeding your children hot dogs, injecting them with over a hundred vaccines by the age of six (not a hundred individual shots, but a hundred vaccines combined into far fewer shots), exposing them to thousands of hours of television violence, taking psychiatric drugs and engaging in other destructive acts that ultimately harm children.

Healthy child rearing is, by definition, alternative in nature. Because most children (mainstream children) are not anywhere close to healthy. The truly healthy children are those raised by parents who reject mainstream junk foods (and medicine) and, instead, raise their children on real, unprocessed food made by Mother Nature.

And the real criminals in our country are not the informed parents who choose healthier options for their children; they are the ones who destroy the rights of such parents while endangering our nation's children with toxic chemicals peddled as "medicine."


About the author: Mike Adams is a natural health researcher and author with a mission to teach personal and planetary health to the public He is a prolific writer and has published thousands of articles, interviews, reports and consumer guides, impacting the lives of millions of readers around the world who are experiencing phenomenal health benefits from reading his articles. Adams is an honest, independent journalist and accepts no money or commissions on the third-party products he writes about or the companies he promotes. In 2007, Adams launched EcoLEDs, a manufacturer of mercury-free, energy-efficient LED lighting products that save electricity and help prevent global warming. He's also a successful software entrepreneur, having founded a well known email marketing software company whose technology currently powers the NaturalNews email newsletters. Adams volunteers his time to serve as the executive director of the Consumer Wellness Center, a 501(c)3 non-profit organization, and pursues hobbies such as Pilates, Capoeira, nature macrophotography and organic gardening. Known on the 'net as 'the Health Ranger,' Adams shares his ethics, mission statements and personal health statistics at www.HealthRanger.org

[northernlights]

1. ok, I generally don't like the government forcing chemo

and other harsh, and not always very successful medical treatments on people, especially their children.

And yes, chemo is poison developed with the goal of poisoning cancer cells faster than healthy cells.

However, the Hauser case involved a *very* treatable cancer with something like a 90% rate of complete cure -- not remission, cure -- with chemo. Cure, as in go on to live a normal, healthy life. Versus, without chemo, a death rate of 95%.

Finally, when Daniel and his mother returned, her explanation for running away with him was that he had made it clear that he intended to run away to get out of further treatment. She basically "ran away" with him to ensure he wouldn't disappear on the streets. And in that way, was able to protect him and convince him to return.

Daniel was too young to make the decision, and frankly too ignorant. Sadly, as a result I presume of his home schooling, he was illiterate at age 13. He could not read.

So their story may or may not be the truth, but she seemed pretty sincere to me. It was a plausible explanation, and if they cooked it up to keep her out of trouble, it was a smart way to do that. But I believe her.

[Celebration]

2. I agree

The line has to be drawn somewhere, and state interference was justified in this case. That doesn't mean in should be used often, however.

[get the red out]

3. That's my take exactly

If interference never took place their would be parents who were literally cult members, or people with untreated mental illness, who could get by with doing very great harm to their children.

[davsand]

7. As I recall there is some learning disability at work there.

I'm not sure where I got that from, but I think I remember reading that the child had a fairly severe learning disability that leaves him functioning at a level well below what is considered "average" for his age group. Under that scenario, he'd be even less able to make any sort of judgment about his own medical care.

________

Frankly, my kid is 12, and much as I love her and as deeply as I respect that ferocious intellect, I'd still have to insist on medical treatment for her were we ever (God/gods/goddess forbid!) faced with that same scenario. She is simply not equipped at her age to be the sole decision maker in certain things. I don't think a lot of adults are ready to face it--let alone a kid.

I would, however, be looking for a Doc to treat her that is willing to discuss alternate therapies and complementary treatments to reduce the trauma of the chemo.



Laura

[latebloomer]

4. It's not all black and white

I used to think that if I got cancer I would NEVER take chemo. However, when I was diagnosed with an acute blood cancer and was near death, I didn't have the time or strength to investigate alternatives, not that there are any that I'm aware of. I was sick for several months and my acupuncturist just attributed it to "low chi" and hormonal issues. Even after I told her I was beginning to feel that there was something seriously wrong with me, she did not respond. I finally nearly bled out and was admitted to the ICU. I took chemo and immediately went into remission. Later I had a stem-cell transplant. Now I am rebuilding my body using more of a holistic approach.

Western medicine is not necessarily evil. There are a lot of bad things about the way it is practiced, certain doctors, pharmaceutical companies, etc. But I now think that a judicious combination of Eastern and Western approaches makes the most sense. I am looking forward to being off all pharmaceuticals and living a natural lifestyle, but I also credit Western medicine with saving my life.

[MorningGlow]

5. So sorry to hear you went through that, LB

:hug:

I agree with you completely--there's a time and a place for all types of medicine, Western and holistic. It doesn't have to be an either/or proposition whatsoever. (That's what irks me about critics who slam "woos"--when they make a blanket statement that none of us would touch Western medicine with a bargepole, when that's not true in the least.)

My doctor is a holistic m.d.--best of both worlds. She knows modern medicine inside and out and can write prescriptions, but she also knows the value of supplements, alternative treatments, and holistic healing. I think being able to integrate all forms of healing to achieve an all-around treatment is the best way to go.

[latebloomer]

6. Thanks, MG

It's been quite a journey. Not one I would have chosen, but I've learned a lot from it.

I envy you your doctor- she sounds great!